True. Fed only played some weakling players from the 2000's who wouldn't even be top 100 today. Obviously if Rosol had played at this time he would have been at least top 5 material. Roddick, Safin, and such would struggle to be inside the top 100 with player as good as Rosol.

Today competition is way thougher. It's not only about the top 2 or top 3 in from the semi-final which is thougher, as explained with brightness TDK, it is though from round 1 nowadays. Serouisly, back in the weak fed era, even the top 5 wasn't as challenging as today's journeymen!!!

True. Fed only played some weakling players from the 2000's who wouldn't even be top 100 today. Obviously if Rosol had played at this time he would have been at least top 5 material. Roddick, Safin, and such would struggle to be inside the top 100 with player as good as Rosol.

Today competition is way thougher. It's not only about the top 2 or top 3 in from the semi-final which is thougher, as explained with brightness TDK, it is though from round 1 nowadays. Serouisly, back in the weak fed era, even the top 5 wasn't as challenging as today's journeymen!!!

Click to expand...

28 out of the last 29 were won by the top three. That's 7 years. That goes all the way back to 2005 !!!! Nothing has changed with the top except now there's additional players at the top besides just federer .....so its tougher now.

Is the field stronger with or without Nadal?
When did he join the field? Was it the same year that he turned pro? Or was it the year that he began winning slams? Or how about the year in which he finally won his first non-clay slam?
WHEN DID RAFA'S ERA BEGIN?

Beginning in 2005, Roger has won ten slams in the exact same era that Rafa has won eleven.

If it bothers you that Roger was able to collect six slams prior to Nadal winning his first slam, Roger turned pro just one year earlier than Rafa. Rafa had plenty of time to get his game up to speed off of clay, but he never seemed to get around to it until Roger was twenty-six years old and I am sorry but it does not impress me when a junior can out-grind an old man who can scarcely protect his backhand against the junior's arguably hideous-looking attack.

They all play against the same field since 2005, you clown. It's not like in the 60s which had a split fields when they had guys like Emerson was competing in the amateur and Laver was competing in the pro.

“Given that there’s more competition, more athleticism and deeper fields now, I’d say Djokovic's record is even more impressive than mine,”[/size]

Click to expand...

Two questions

1) Why are you cherry picking words? Why you pick the words of people who agree with your line of thought as gospel and ignore the words of guys like Andre Agassi who actually have played both Rafa and Roger?

2) Why do you use a larger font to type them? Do you think that people out here are blind? Don't you know that it's bad etiquette ?

1) Why are you cherry picking words? Why you pick the words of people who agree with your line of thought as gospel and ignore the words of guys like Andre Agassi who actually have played both Rafa and Roger?

2) Why do you use a larger font to type them? Do you think that people out here are blind? Don't you know that it's bad etiquette ?

There is a little difference between 18/19 year old Nadal and 26 year old Nadal you know. To beat Nadal today at Wimbledon is only about 10 times more impressive than doing it in 2005. It is even more laughable that some of you like to pretend 2005 was prime Nadal as the delusional people who try to pretend 2012 is peak Federer.

There is a little difference between 18/19 year old Nadal and 26 year old Nadal you know. To beat Nadal today at Wimbledon is only about 10 times more impressive than doing it in 2005. It is even more laughable that some of you like to pretend 2005 was prime Nadal as the delusional people who try to pretend 2012 is peak Federer.

First, who gives a rat's ass about what Pat Cash said? The guy has been babbling nonsense about Fed. I wonder who hired him in the first place. But then when you have JMac babbling some other nonsense, it's no surprise. You're the ONLY one who gives any kind of importance to Pat's comments. No surprise given your TREMENDOUS depth of your knowledge of tennis.
Second, I'm thinking we seriously consider to ask TW mod to ban you. No etiquette, always trolling by asking stupid questions, or raising irrelevant issues. Plus, you don't know that BIG FONTS should be used with care. Very far from making people believe about the size of your manhood...
You-are-a-public-disgrace!

Click to expand...

What about steffi? Even with a
All the fonts you still missed her?

You also missed Roger federer himself .

Now you see why fonts are necessary....your about as smart as my foot.

Now you see why fonts are necessary....your about as smart as my foot.

Click to expand...

Contrary to you, I don't fantasize nor obsess about any women, player or whoever else.
You, on the other hand, are quite another matter. It looks like you still don't understand some rules of adulthood, for instance keeping tennis discussions centered about tennis and NOT about someone's else gf/wife/etc.
About Fed declaring himself playing in the golden era. As someone else pointed out, do you expect him to say that his era is composed of only losers? MORON.
Besides, it's so much beyond the point. Read this: you play the hand you are dealt with. Let me know if you cannot understand it.
If we really follow your logic: Fed beat a bunch of losers for his GS, so he's a loser himself. Now Rafa and Djoker also play pretty much in his era, minus 5-6 years. You said, because these two beat Fed, they should be considered GOAT. How is it that beating a bunch of losers, including Fed, elevate Rafa and Djoker to the rank of GREATs? Don't you have to beat the GREATs to be considered GREAT?
Putting foot in your mouth. How many times already? I'm maybe not smarter than you but at least I don't try to fool people with some kind of twisted, nonsense logic.
Finally, Rafa LOST. Shouldn't you go to sleep until USO and let us, the true tennis fans, enjoy some decent intelligent conversations on this forum?

If Federer was thriving against a weak field in his best years, what does this say about his current opponents? Looks like the old man made it to the final of Wimbledon, where he has a shot at breaking/improving a few records...

Well,weak field or not, we all saw what 31-year old Fed did a prime Djoker today. Let's not forget what Fed did at FO SF last year too. A testament of how amazing Fed can be when his game comes together.